Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Friniate!

Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ລາວ | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- 12:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Friniate⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

Dear Friniate,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Check user

Aperta richiesta di CU, grazie dell'informazione. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ben scavato, vecchia talpa! Ne sono stati individuati tre o quattro con un CU, tutti infinitati. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

E anche questo è finito a far compagnia agli altri nell'archivio calzini puzzolenti. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Il ragazzo pensa che cancellando i tuoi messaggi io non me ne accorga. Deve proprio immaginare che io dorma da piedi... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 21:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh, devono imparare i giovanotti. Più o meno come cercare di sorprendere alle spalle qualcuno in una stanza piena di specchi... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 23:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Devo dire che il ragazzo inizia ad avere una bella storia di SP. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A me lo sai cosa fa più ridere di tutta questa storia? Che il ragazzo pensa che siamo tutti dei perfetti coglioni :-) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Io gli bloccherei il range IP ... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Segnalato. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A3cb1

Caarl 95, thank you for your help in tracking A3cb1. In the future, however, please amend an existing RfCU request instead of creating a new one. You have already created four seperate requests (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Saschuoc44, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vantazed, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sciuris44 and Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/RULLORULLO475), which makes it difficult to track the CU history; it is better to keep it in one place. See also the instructions at COM:RFCU: "If a case subpage already exists, edit the existing page instead (of creating a new one), either adding to the currently open section (if the case is not yet archived) or adding a new section to the top". Regards, Эlcobbola _talk 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Rights

Hi, I added you the patroller and autopatroller rights. Thanks for your contributions. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

==Re:== Lasciatelo dire che sei su commons a rovinare l esistenza dell arte sei un copyviol vivente --82.52.35.189 14:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Indefinitely banned user.--Caarl 95 (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

bravo togli le conversazioni invece di informarti sui ritratti --82.55.80.97 14:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Basterebbe non cliccare più sul tastino "carica file" e finirebbe in un attimo ogni motivo di contrasto.--Caarl 95 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ma basta con sta storia per favore,, almeno guarda il dipinto e noteresti che la qualità del dipinto è fuori dalle protezioni di copyright, dopotutto è un dipinto di metà 600 IL COPYRIGHT DEL RITRATTO è SCADUTO DA ANNI !!!, dato che è stato eseguito da

Valore Casini (1590–1660)
Alternative names	casini
Description	Italian painter
Date of birth/death	1590	1660
Location of birth/death	Florence	Florence
Work period	Baroque era QS:P2348,Q37853
Work location	Florence
Authority file	: Q3259504 VIAF: 95736803 ULAN: 500009135 WGA: c/casini RKD: 15745

ma tanto te sei ottuso e non capisci niente,, non ha mai caricato neanche un file che motivo hai sempre di ostinarti sempre anche quando non ci problemmi --82.55.80.97 15:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A prescindere dal copyright e dall'esattezza delle informazioni, sui progetti wikimedia ci sono delle norme minime di comportamento da rispettare. Creare continuamente dei sockpuppet e offendere gli interlocutori non sono esattamente indici di un comportamento consono ai progetti wikimedia. Se vuoi contribuire seriamente, ti fai una vacanza da wikipedia, diciamo per qualche anno, poi al ritorno ti registri, fai presente agli amministratori chi sei e, se la comunità acconsente riprendi ad editare non sgarrando di una virgola.--Caarl 95 (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

hhmmm scusami ho avuto uno scatto d' ira nei tuoi confronti,,, ma diciamo che per esempio se io dovessi tornare dopo 2 anni di stop chi mi assicura che gli admin di wikipedia non mi diano ancora del vandalo distruttivo,, e poi chi mi assicura se mi dici di poter editare normalmente e tranquillamente? --95.244.103.63 18:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Stavo per scriverti che non ci sono (ovviamente) garanzie ma che pensavo che in ogni caso la comunità ti permetterebbe di farti una nuova utenza, quando ho visto la tua ennesima evasione. A prescindere dal merito, hai torto marcio, punto. La fiducia in te da parte della comunità non c'è e non mi pare decisamente recuperabile.--Caarl 95 (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Mehlauger

User:Mehlauger has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/User:Mehlauger This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this user page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

  — Jeff G. ツ 02:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

العربية ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（中国大陆） ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. repeated insults, false comments, and bludgeoning.

Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Question about fair use on it.wiki

Hi. I'm sure your aware of it already, but apparently according https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2021-12-27/italy-copyright-law-updated-for-digital-era/ to this site]] the law in Italy was changed a few years ago to allow "Providers of access to nonprofit online encyclopedias" to "extract text and data from works or other materials available in networks or databases to which they have lawful access, to reproduce them for the protection of cultural heritage and for scientific research, and to communicate the results of their research expressed in new original works to the public." If I'm reading that right I don't see why it wouldn't mean it.wiki could host otherwise copyrighted images of buildings in Italy by copying them from Commons or other websites under the guise of protecting cultural heritage since obviously it.wiki is a nonprofit online encyclopedia. Although Commons couldn't host the files since it isn't one and doesn't allow for fair usage, but I feel like that would help resolve a lot of the problems Italian users are currently having with images of monuments in Italy being deleted. Since the whole thing is clearly badly thought out and ambiguous, at least when it comes to hosting the images on Commons, but you could clearly make a case for hosting the images on it.wiki.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd like to think issues like the ones brought up in the Village Pump discussion about FOP in Italy could be resolved in a way that benefits everyone by allowing the images to just be uploaded to Italian Wikipedia while being deleted on our end. Otherwise one side of the whole thing is getting screwed. Either we are by letting Italian users keep images that have extremely questionable copyright status' or they are because we would be deleting a lot of images that are being used in Wikipedia articles and would otherwise be kept if we allowed for fair use. But if my reading of the law is correct it could be resolved by just uploading the images to it.wiki under the guise of protecting culture heritage instead of hosting them on Commons. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on it though and if you think that could be a possibility. Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monument to Luigi Boccherini (Lucca)

Please consider making a template explaining what you said in your comment so that it can be appended to the relevant photos and cited by others when this comes up on the future. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Buontemponi

Ciao, ma chi è 'sto spiritoso signore che hai pure bloccato qualche giorno fa? -- Blackcat 03:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama, Vatican City

I started Commons:Deletion requests/File:G. MANZU - Porta della Morte - 1949-64 - ROM - St. Peter - 063.22.jpg, and have some questions: The Vatican is an own country, but according to COM:Vatican City they follow Italian laws here. What do you think: Should there be an addition like in COM:FOP Italy that in deletion requests the same string <noinclude>[[Category:Italian FOP cases/pending]]</noinclude> should be inserted despite being a different country? Or is it worth to create a separate category for this topic? — Speravir – 00:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Italian noFoP exception?

Hello, we had several months ago some conversation about files which could be kept in Commons despite of a not existing freedom of panorama in Italy. My actual question is, whether Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monumento a Michetti - panoramio.jpg possibly should have been kept. You can see the image in dewiki, de:Datei:Monumento a Michetti - panoramio.jpg (where I found it as I wanted to fix the broken link to Panoramio), or as archived copy from Panoramio. — Speravir – 03:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Auditorium Parco della Musica (Rome)

Hi, What about these? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Foto murale

Ciao Friniate, ti contatto per avere un aiuto. Secondo te, in riferimento a questa discussione, come si può evitare che la foto venga cancellata? Potrei chiedere un'autorizzazione al Comune? esiste una procedura? Grazie Alphacentauri2007 (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Grazie mille per la risposta. Alphacentauri2007 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Seguendo il tuo suggerimento e facendo una ricerca ho scoperto questo documento. Nell'oggetto è indicato l'anno di riferimento ma nel corpo della delibera di parla di adesione al progetto in generale. Secondo te si può considerare tale? Grazie Alphacentauri2007 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hai ragione, non avevo visto l'elenco dei monumenti. Grazie Alphacentauri2007 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Information on temporary account IP viewer rights

Hello Friniate,

On November 12, temporary accounts will be enabled on Commons. The IP of unregistered users will then be hidden for most users. You, as a patroller or license reviewer, are eligible to request the new temporary account IP viewer right, if you need it to continue fighting vandalism and abuse on Commons. If you want to request the right, please file the request here. Please be aware that you also have to accept the Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy in your preferences. For more information about temporary accounts, look at the project page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Correct tag

Hello. For images of old buildings from noFoP countries like Italy, use {{PD-old-architecture}}. Do not use {{PD-US-architecture}} as it categorizes foreign images to a category reserved only for US buildings (Category:PD US architecture). See, for example, this. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Re:orphan works

Ciao Friniate, I would like to start praising your contribution to Commons. As you have notice I participate in several DR and I really like when you find the time to check the author of an architectonic work or a street art. If we are discussing something here is perhaps a small disagreement between us. I would also thank you for stopping the discussion in the DR and bring it to the discussion page.

Regarding orphan works, we first have to agree in something: what we in Commons call "orphan work" differs from what others, e.g., museums, call "orphan work". I already pointed out, using your own sources, that some institution include in the concept of "orphan works" works with known authors that they are unable to contact.

Regarding your argument that "orphan works" are borderline in the US law, I don't really buy it. If there is a trial due to copyright infringement, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that they are the authors / copyright holders. That is, by definition there cannot be a trial under our definition of "orphan works". It is not the case under the definition "orphan works" used by museums. They perhaps knew the copyright holder but were unable to locate them to fairly compensate their usage of the works.

Thus, the argument for foreign "orphan works" is whether URAA applies when the artwork is in the public domain in its country of origin but not in the US. The policy in Commons URAA in Commons is clear. We systematically delete files that are not in the public domain in the US, and it is explicit from the law: US copyright duration applies and the only important date is the URAA restoration date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).

I also don't buy your argument that "orphan works", that fall under URAA restoration under my previous point, are more borderline than FoP cases. The argument used in {{Not-free-US-FOP}} is two folds: it argues that the local law should apply in Berne Convention cases (i.e. if the source country doesn't protect certain derivative works, then US should not grant protection) and that there is no US court rule that contradict the previous legal principle. In past, we similarly allowed files infringing URAA restoration because there was no court case and many argued that the retroactive aspect of the law was unconstitutional, but we changed our position after the opinion of the US supreme court said the contrary. How that can be more "borderline"? Also, were is the argument that the US cannot apply their own copyright duration for foreign works? The US law is quite concrete The copyright in any work in which copyright is restored will last for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have enjoyed if the work had never entered the public domain in the United States.. Günther Frager (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your appreciation, ask you could see on my user page yours is an exception :D.

My arguments are more nuanced and I will try to explain it in more detail. The Berne Convention is an agreement to automatically grant copyright protection to foreign works. The US won't grant copyright protection a work that they would not grant protection. For example, the US won't grant protection to fonts designed in foreign countries because they don't give copyright protection to fonts. Similarly, the US won't grant copyright protection to foreign works that are not protected in their country origin even if a similar work would have protection in the US. For example, the US won't grant protection to stamps from countries that don't grant protection to stamps. The copyright protects the artwork (you cannot make a verbatim copy of a book) but it also protects derivatives (you cannot make make a similar painting). The FoP is an exception to the protection of derivative works: If you painted a mural you can likely sue someone that made a similar mural, but you won't be able to sue someone that published a photo of your mural. The US only has an exception for buildings. That, means that if someone publishes a photo of a copyrighted building from France, no US court will consider it a copyright infringement in the US, despite it being a copyright violation in its country of origin. The tricky part is what happens when someone publishes a photo of sculpture installed in Spain. Sculptures are protected by copyright in both countries but Spain grants copyright exceptions in a particular case while the US doesn't. If you read the implementation of the Berne Convention in the US law there is no mention about it. A judge might interpret "as the object is copyrighted in Spain and we copyright such kind of object it is also copyrighted in the US, it has all the protection a national work has" another judge can interpret "as taking a photo is not a copyright violation in Spain we won't grant such protection". Again the main take away is that it is not codified how copyright exception granted in the foreign country are handled.

Regarding your question regarding URAA and PD in the country of origin, the answer is simple. The URAA legislation typifies (1) which works are subject to copyright restoration (2) when the restoration happens (3) what is the copyright duration. A judge doesn't need to interpret if the copyright protection is determined by the legislation of the country of origin or the legislation of the US. The text regarding the duration of copyright is as follows, URAA restoration law, page 168:

(A) Copyright subsists, in accordance with this section, in restored works, and vests automatically on the date of restoration.

(B) Any work in which copyright is restored under this section shall subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States.

The only thing that needs to be determined whether a work was copyrighted in the country of origin at the restoration date (January 1, 1996 for most countries). I don't understand why there should be a difference if an Italian photographer took a photo of Maradona in 1986, assuming Italian law doesn't consider it a work of art, and sued someone in the US for copyright infringement in 2000 versus if he sued someone in 2026. In 2000 the judge would have told him, you are entitled to compensation and your rights will last until 70 years after your death. What is supposed to say the judge in 2026? Bad luck you are too late. You cannot exercise your copyright that the US granted automatically in 1996 and subsists until 70 years after your death???

Regarding orphan works and PD. It depends on (1) what you consider orphan work (2) which is the country of origin (3) what is the evidence it was in the PD in its country of origin in 1996.

If source of a photo is the Louvre museum, and they say that they acquired it in 1938 and there has no signature in the front and back. Then, according to the French law in 1996 an artwork with an unknown author has a copyright protection of 50 years after publication. If the author was unknown in 1996 then it was in the French public domain in 1996, so URAA didn't restored its copyright. If later the actual is disclosed, URAA still won't apply at 1996 it was considered in the public domain in its country of origin. Now, if you have a scan from a photo clearly taken in the 1930s but the source is a blog that doesn't provide any information about its provenience and the reverse is not even provided, then sorry but you have no evidence it is actual orphan work nor that it was in the PD in its country of origin in 1996. In fact you don't have evidence it is currently PD in its country of origin.

Günther Frager (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• no caselaw about works with unkown authorship in the US [...] I already replied to it. In law there something called locus standi and it basically states that you cannot sue someone unless you are affected. That is, for copyright infringement cases the plaintiff must be the copyright holder. If I detect you unlawfully used an artwork that I didn't create, then I cannot sue you. The laws regarding orphan works (not present in the US at the moment) rule what is a fair compensation when the unknown or unreachable copyright holder materializes and sues you. They don't rule that orphan works are in the public domain.
• I'm only saying that we should apply [PCP] only when we know that the work would be protected in the US. I agree. Consider a simple photo created in the 1980s. In the case there is evidence that (1) the photo was published before March 1, 1989 in its country of origin (2) it was still copyrighted in the country of origin in January 1, 1996; then URAA applies. In case we have evidence that (1) it was first published in its country of origin and (2) it was copyrighted in its country of origin when it was published; then Berne Convention applies. In case we have evidence (1) it was first published after March 1, 1989 in its country of origin and (2) it was in the public domain in its country of origin when published; then the US law determines its is in the public domain. The policy COM:EVID states that uploader must provide evidence that the photo is in the public domain in the US and in its country of origin. In this case if the uploder has no evidence of the 3rd scenario, then the DR should be closed due to COM:EVID, not because of COM:PCP.
• photographs are protected in Italy only if on the photograph it's written the article doesn't say the photograph is in the public domain. It only states that if I give you a photograph without my name, date, etc. I cannot claim the monetary compensations stipulated in articles 91 regarding reproduction in academic publications or newspapers and in article 98 regarding the reproduction of portrait photographs by the person depicted in it. Also, the article 98, it specifies that author must be mentioned in case of academic publication, but it doesn't indicate it in case of newspapers. The articule 98 starts with a provision "unless something else is agreed among the parties...". Moreover, the article 88 not only grants the right of reproduction, but also the right of dissemination and right to sell the photographs. Günther Frager (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  • All copyright infringement cases are about the copyright status of an artwork as the plaintiff has to prove their are the lawful copyright holders and that the artwork hasn't fallen in the public domain. Of course the plaintiff might fail to provide evidence and the judge rule the artwork is in the public domain.
  • The COM:L requires that artworks to either have a free license or to be in the public domain in the US and its country of origin. It is obvious that for many cases we won't be able to be 100% accurate. In the example you provided we both made the assumption that the country of origin was France. And it is OK to ask what is reasonable evidence to determine a file complies with COM:L. Assuming that a poster of a French company written in French was first published in France is reasonable. The problem with your argument is that you are not optimizing for accuracy (how probable that an artwork in the public domain), you are tying to minimize the damage fee in case we made a mistake. Could you explain me why it is reasonable to assume that a signed painting created in 1922 in France is today in the French public domain? Because artists like Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dalí, Bertolt Brecht, Igor Stravinsky, Jean Sibelus and large etc. were active active in the 1920s and their works are still protected by copyright in France. What about signed paintings created in 1945 in France? (the limit for France that we accept in COM:ORPHAN).
  • Could you explain me why File:Affiche de la Compagnie Franco Roumaine de Navigation Aérienne 1922.jpg is actually an orphan work? That is, why is the copyright holder unknown or unreachable? The poster is for the now defunct company Compagnie franco Roumaine de Navigation Aérienne (CFRNA). If you see the wiki article that uses this image you will find out it merged in 1933 with other airlines to form Air France. Perhaps Air France is not the copyright holder and just obtained a license from the artists. But did someone contact them to ensure they are not the copyright holders? Or is Air France an unreachable entity?
  • we care about our right, we care that the artworks are freely licensed or in the public domain and that is not the case. But feel free to bring the topic to COM:VP.

  Günther Frager (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)